“Distinguished Warfare” drone and cyber medal shot down

Medal was recalled after heavy fire from VFW, Congress.

After getting flak from all directions—including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and members of Congress—the Defense Department has pulled the plug on a proposed medal of valor for drone operators and cyber warriors. The Distinguished Warfare Medal, which was announced two months ago by outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, was shelved by new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on April 15.

The medal was intended to be awarded to members of the military engaged in cyber operations or in drone operations that saved the lives of those on the battlefield, going above and beyond the call of duty. The Distinguished Warfare Medal's "order of precedence"—its position in the ranking of decorations and how they are worn by those who receive them—placed its level of importance just below the Distinguished Flying Cross and just above the Bronze Star. Both of those medals are awarded for valor in actions on the battlefield and have frequently been awarded posthumously.

The medal was also to be ranked higher than the Purple Heart, awarded to those who have been wounded in battle. That consequence immediately drew the ire of the VFW, which launched an e-mail campaign to rally members behind House and Senate legislation to kill the award—largely because of a perception that it honored people off the battlefield at a higher level than those on it. "The VFW adamantly believes that medals that can only be earned in combat must rank higher than new medals awarded in the rear!" wrote John E. Hamilton, the commander-in-chief of the VFW in a March 9 e-mail.

But the outrage wasn't universal. One current service member involved in cyber operations who received the VFW e-mail and shared it with Ars responded by pointing out the level of vetting the medal required to be awarded, which "requires approval from so far up the chain that the likelihood of it being issued when unjustified is virtually nil. Further, as laid out, this medal will be for people whose actions resulted DIRECTLY in saving American lives; not indirectly like fixing a Humvee that is then used to extract people, but directly preventing the loss of american lives beyond the normal call of their everyday job."

After a review of the medal ordered by Hagel, the Joint Chiefs of Staff determined that no new medal is needed. Instead, a special "device" will be authorized to be attached to existing medals, such as the Meritorious Service Medal or Army Commendation Medal, to indicate that the medal was awarded for drone or cyber operations. The DoD is now developing criteria for awarding the drone and cyber pins for those awards.

The medal was intended to be awarded to members of the military engaged in cyber-operations or in drone operations that saved the lives of those on the battlefield, going above and beyond the call of duty.

Quote:

"...but directly preventing the loss of American lives beyond the normal call of their everyday job."

I think that we should recognize the achievements of our soldiers and celebrate actions that save lives, but just how far "above and beyond the call of duty" can someone operating a drone go? I don't want to belittle the work that is done, because it is important, but I just don't see it. It isn't like being there and being shot at.

disclaimer: I'm not military, although I have several friends who are.

I can certainly see why both sides of this would feel like they do, but I do have to point out the potential fallacy of the idea that involving the loftiest levels of authority would mean "that the likelihood of it being issued when unjustified is virtually nil".

I've only worked in the private sector, so can't speak for the military, but my understanding of the government in general is that (just like any other large organization) the people with large titles don't necessarily have better judgement or understanding than the low-level grunts they manage (and in many cases, they know considerably less). Promotions can be given for a number of reasons, and merit isn't always one of them.

Good call by Hagel. As a retired military guy with medals awarded for flying around and doing my job (which by the way, its very arguable that you should even get a medal for flying above the battle anyway) I'm not happy the medal went away entirely.

I would have rather seen it downgraded in the order of precedence. Any award that requires someone to stand up under enemy attack should be higher in precedence than one where you sit behind a computer screen in complete safety. But the guys flying the UAVs do good work that should be rewarded at some level.

Hopefully the device won't be something stupid like a little propeller or UAV.

The medal was intended to be awarded to members of the military engaged in cyber-operations or in drone operations that saved the lives of those on the battlefield, going above and beyond the call of duty.

Quote:

"...but directly preventing the loss of American lives beyond the normal call of their everyday job."

I think that we should recognize the achievements of our soldiers and celebrate actions that save lives, but just how far "above and beyond the call of duty" can someone operating a drone can go? I don't want to belittle the work that is done, because it is important, but I just don't see it. It isn't like being there and being shot at.

disclaimer: I'm not military, although I have several friends who are.

edit: I has grammar

Achivent Earned: With Extreme Predjudice from a Distance!

I think this would sum it up as far as I'm concerned. Listening to my dad tell me about driving a boat in Vietnam, the dangers of being flipped/stranded by the tide after a drop off, and the knowledge that you are almost always outgunned ... uh uh, there is no medal worthy operation here. Beyond the call of duty means getting your but out there and putting it on the line not pressing an extra button or two.

I'm glad they scrapped the idea. As former military, placing that over the purple heart and bronze star puzzled the hell out of me. Where is the 'Above and beyond the call of Duty' aspect of driving a drone? It's not like the driver is in any danger. Sure, it's good to save lives, and clever or determined ways of doing so should be commended, but there is no real personal physical consequences to their actions. At the end of the day they will always be fine and get to go home. There is no putting your life on the line involved. Even if you decided to sacrifice your craft by personally dive bombing an enemy combatant in your UAV, you're still physically fine and were never in any personal danger after it's all said and done.

Medals are about honor, and there is no honor in killing the enemy with a drone. None whatsoever.

Creating a new medal for this degrades every other medal in existence.

No guts, no glory.

Ranking it above medals for soldiers in more immediate path of harm was a mistake, but shouldn't there be some kind of commendation for exceptional service as a drone pilot? Shouldn't the drone ace who executes every mission successfully get something s/he can pin on his/her chest with pride?

I find it comical that your post is being down voted into oblivion for stating the facts.

It's being downvoted because it doesn't add to the discussion surrounding the proposed Distinguished Warfare medal, where it should lie in the heirarchy of medals, or whether/not medals should be awarded to UAV pilots at all.

Shouldn't the drone ace who executes every mission successfully get something s/he can pin on his/her chest with pride?

I think most people would agree that drone pilots (I heard they don't like them being called drones, since it implies there's no piloting) deserve commendations for executing their missions well. It's just a matter weighting.

How about they just make a different, non-combat medal? Meritorious Drone Operation or something. Drone ops get their recognition, and combat vets don't have to worry about their efforts or medals being cheapened.

BTW, I know nothing about how medals work in the armed forces. But I see no reason not to reward people for a job done exceptionally well. That's just good management. Regarding drone use in general... that's a whole different topic.

Medals are about honor, and there is no honor in killing the enemy with a drone. None whatsoever.

Creating a new medal for this degrades every other medal in existence.

No guts, no glory.

Ranking it above medals for soldiers in more immediate path of harm was a mistake, but shouldn't there be some kind of commendation for exceptional service as a drone pilot? Shouldn't the drone ace who executes every mission successfully get something s/he can pin on his/her chest with pride?

No, I have seen firsthand what conditions drone pilots operate under. There is about as much risk to their lives as the guy who signed up to deliver mail.

If you want a medal, you have to put something on the line. What does a drone pilot risk?

If we give medals out to drone pilots, where are the medals for the mail carriers? If we are going to give distinguished honors to the drone pilot, what about the guys working in the food service specialist positions? They all are risking their lives equally, which is to say not much at all.

As for my personal feelings on the situation, being a former combat arms soldier (13f), drone pilots who wore those medals with pride would be met with derision from any soldier who spent time on a real battlefield. If I were a drone pilot I wouldn't want one of those on my chest. They know as well as every soldier that what they do is not in any way dangerous.

You want medals? You want "glory"? How about you join the 11 series, the 18 series, be a 13 foxtrot, be a 19 delta? Those guys deserve medals. Those guys face uncertain futures, in harsh conditions. Drone pilots more often than not sit in air conditioning. They chose that.

From the outside, knowing what little I do about the military in general, it seems rather odd that a medal for playing a live-action video game would outrank a purple heart.

The whole idea of drones is to put machines (expensive, technology-dense machines) in the place of humans, and to do the jobs that humans can't or shouldn't. I have no qualm with a drone pilot (the kind that sit in a virtual cockpit hundreds of miles from the fighting) being recognized for superior performance, but the pin as an add-on makes more sense there.

Where I would say something more is deserved is in the situation where the drone pilot sits not in a building, but very near the fighting, carrying out their duty and saving lives while at the same time being under attack physically. Whether that is deserving of a more impressive medal than a purple heart is debatable, but they ARE essentially ignoring the consequences to themselves while virtually helping out their fellow soldiers however they can. In some ways that seems like a purple heart, in some ways something a little different.

tl:dr. They deserve the respect, some more than others, but I don't think a brand new medal is the way to go.

It's awkward because the consequences of the drone pilot's actions on the battlefield are so horribly out of balance with the risks he faces while doing so. As a rule, a single drone pilot with a missile or two at his fingertips can personally change the momentum of an entire battle in a much bigger way than a single guy on the ground with an M16... but the guy on the ground faces a very real risk of not making it back to his bunk tonight, while the drone pilot risks little more than carpal tunnel and a sore fanny. Both should be rewarded for making a difference in battle... but the guy on the ground should be rewarded more for putting his ass on the line to do it.

My biggest question about the entire affair was why they needed something beyond the current Meritorious Service Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, etc. These are designed for exceptional, but non-combat, service.

And for those that say they deserve something for a job well done, this is The United States military we are talking about. EVERYONE is EXPECTED to do their job well. You shouldn't get a medal for doing what is expected of you. You should get that medal by going above and beyond your peers in what you do. How do you do this as a drone operator, when all you are doing is following instructions? There is no room for interpretation, no room to deviate from your assigned task.

My infantry buddies have a term for these guys, "chairborne".

That is how we former and current combat arms soldiers view this. You know, the guys who are coming home in body bags and wheel chairs. The guys who have bullets whiz past their faces, the guys who have to kill or be killed, the guys who face death from an ied, the guys who sometimes lose a friend right in front of their eyes.

If there are any other combat arms soldiers here, let's hear what they have to say on the subject. You civvies are silly with your ideas of everyone getting medals.

My biggest question about the entire affair was why they needed something beyond the current Meritorious Service Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, etc. These are designed for exceptional, but non-combat, service.

Medals are about honor, and there is no honor in killing the enemy with a drone. None whatsoever.

Creating a new medal for this degrades every other medal in existence.

No guts, no glory.

Ranking it above medals for soldiers in more immediate path of harm was a mistake, but shouldn't there be some kind of commendation for exceptional service as a drone pilot? Shouldn't the drone ace who executes every mission successfully get something s/he can pin on his/her chest with pride?

No, I have seen firsthand what conditions drone pilots operate under. There is about as much risk to their lives as the guy who signed up to deliver mail.

If you want a medal, you have to put something on the line. What does a drone pilot risk?

If we give medals out to drone pilots, where are the medals for the mail carriers? If we are going to give distinguished honors to the drone pilot, what about the guys working in the food service specialist positions? They all are risking their lives equally, which is to say not much at all.

As for my personal feelings on the situation, being a former combat arms soldier (13f), drone pilots who wore those medals with pride would be met with derision from any soldier who spent time on a real battlefield. If I were a drone pilot I wouldn't want one of those on my chest. They know as well as every soldier that what they do is not in any way dangerous.

You want medals? You want "glory"? How about you join the 11 series, the 18 series, be a 13 foxtrot, be a 19 delta? Those guys deserve medals. Those guys face uncertain futures, in harsh conditions. Drone pilots more often than not sit in air conditioning. They chose that.

Sure, true, but unless I miss something, unlike the civil service or most businesses, the military doesn't give out simple "awards" if you do a good job. It is some kind of "medal". Well, for the most part.

To the mail carrier...they do a damned good job, maybe better than most of their peers, they probably will get an award at work or a commendation (depending on what it is called/function). I do a damned good job where I work, I get either an award (which means typically a cash bonus or pay increase attached to it) or a citation (basically just a pat on the back and a piece of wood with something flowery written on the front of it...which is why we call them getting woodies here).

No matter your job, you recognize and award doing a good job. I agree completely that putting your actual neck on the line deserves a significant amount more recognition, prestigious, etc than simply doing a really good job sitting at a computer...but if you do a damned good job sitting a computer, especially if you manage to do something like saving someone's butt, or solving a situation in a unique/commendable way deserves recognition as well.

I find it comical that your post is being down voted into oblivion for stating the facts. I guess as long as the victim of the drone strike is not a US civilian everything is well and good.

I suspect it's being downvoted for being off-topic. That's why I downvoted it. This article isn't about whether or not the US should be conducting drone strikes.

Well...it *does* relate to the point that they're trying to give people *medals* for this level of shoddy marksmanship.

And making it a higher reward than what you get for actuallty risking yourself in the line of fire (rather than a glorified R/C plane) and getting injured for it? I completely agree with the outrage.

As for adding a device to existing awards--how about a Futaba or Tamiya logo, or maybe the classic Atari 2600 joystick? Seems fitting. Now if these folks were piloting their drones while they *themselves* were under fire, that would be a different story.

I also want to point out that there is a difference between the guys sitting in a missile silo and the drone pilots. Yeah, they both sit on their butts all day long, usually in some form of climate control, but the guys sitting in the missile silo with keys to launch them are sitting in a high-value, high-priority target, and if shit hits the fan their lives are at much more risk than the drone pilots.

I guess I am just missing the part where the drone pilots life is in danger any more than the food service specialists.

Should we make a medal for the cook who makes the best meals? If he is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to making an omelette, does that deserve a medal?

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.